You’re very slow to learn, aren’t you, phano?

<<OK I have made an assertion and provided no evidence. Why should it bother you?>>

Because http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof, and you state your assertions as incontrovertible facts.

<<What harm does this particular assertion do? … Everyone who reads them would look for some evidence to back up this assertion...>>

I don’t think you really believe this, and you’d be right not to. Why would you bother expressing unfounded opinions if you did? I don’t think most people look for evidence for the claims they read. Especially if they were already inclined to believe them.

<<I'll worry about that when [science demonstrates that homosexuality has a biological basis].>>

Here’s those links again:

http://www.behavioralneuroscience.org/neurogenetics_files/La%CC%8Angstro%CC%88m%20et%20al.%20-%202010%20-%20Archives%20of%20sexual%20behavior.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18561014
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/J_Bailey2/publication/12572213_Genetics_and_Environmental_Influences_on_Sexual_Orientation_and_Its_Correlates_in_an_Australian_Twin_Sample/links/0deec518bc0435c0cd000000.pdf

DreamOn picked out two choice quotes in case you don’t feel like reading all that. It appears you missed all the fun, or are you just ignoring it because it’s inconvenient? Perhaps the evidence doesn't count when you're talking to someone else? Is that it?

<<Since [homosexuality has not been demonstrated to have a biological basis,] my assertion remains just as likely to be true as the opposite.>>

No, it doesn’t. Had you actually had some formal qualifications in psychology, like some here, then you would understand that all behaviour has at least some biological basis, but sometimes pinpointing it can be difficult.

<<Do you have any evidence for that assertion of certainty?>>

See above.

And you were the one with the burden of proof. *Tsk tsk* Very disappointing.

Dear Pogi,

I noticed that you cited my name as if I claimed that Phanto is deliberately lying.

- I never claimed anything like it.

While I respect Phanto's views on many other issues, on this specific tiresome issue of homosexuality, I believe that he happens to be wrong, but certainly not lying deliberately. To summarise my views in response to his main claims:

Phanto: "Heterosexual behaviour can be reasonable but homosexual behaviour is never reasonable"
Me: I believe that neither is reasonable.

Phanto: "what they do will always be a poor simulation of the best sexual experience"
Me: All types of sex are a poor simulation of love.

Phanto: "If homosexuals are born that way then they have been given a very poor deal by nature"
Me: Anyone who is born a slave to their bodily passion has been given a very poor deal by nature, regardless who/what/which happen to be the object(s) of those passions.

Phanto: "The highest pursuit you can have is to live life to the full."
Me: The highest pursuit you can have is to get over your addiction to earthly life.

Phanto: "No one has sex only for procreation"
Me: Many do, that's not to say that I place them on a pedestal. I believe that procreation is wrong in this day and age of extreme overpopulation.

---

Dear DreamOn,

«I believe some members (and yet to be members) of the LGBT community are still being terribly demonised»

And rightly so, not for their sexual traits but for politicising them.

There are beggars in India who make a living of showing tourists their disgusting wounds and missing/distorted limbs - I similarly view those who identify with the LGBT or any other sexually-based community, heterosexual too.

Except for a very rare few saints, we are all born afflicted with sexuality of one kind or another. Nobody should be demonised for it, but nobody should fuss over it and be proud of it either.

Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 20 August 2016 8:16:27 PM

*DreamOn*
«I believe some members (and yet to be members) of the LGBT community are still being terribly demonised»

*Yuyutsu*
" ... And rightly so, not for their sexual traits but for politicising them. ... "

It is the very laws themselves which require changing so it necessarily follows that the matter needs to be politicised. And part of that is public debate and education. And why should they not be able to freely air their grievances as any other resident who rights arguably are being infringed upon?

" ... There are beggars in India who make a living of showing tourists their disgusting wounds and missing/distorted limbs ... "

And is this entirely their own fault in your view? And there is self harm in the mix there too I believe but when the Indian government is so capable as to provide better opportunities for these folk too I am sure they will be all "ears."

" ... - I similarly view those who identify with the LGBT or any other sexually-based community, heterosexual too. ... "

I am having trouble understanding this one, would you like to rephrase?

" ... Except for a very rare few saints, we are all born afflicted with sexuality of one kind or another. ... "

Afflicted!? You must be evolving into a higher form of only partially corporeal life *YY* with only a limited need for your physical body. .. Sexuality is a tonic, a healer, a rejuvenator. I accept that it not without its downsides, but on balance, I wouldn't want to be without it.

and then you say *YY*

" ... Nobody should be demonised for it, ... "

contrary to what you have said above if I am not mistaken. Would you like to take a moment to retract and rephrase?

" ... but nobody should fuss over it and be proud of it either. ... "

Why not?

Dear DreamOn,

«It is the very laws themselves which require changing»

There have been bad laws in the past regarding homosexuality, but they are long gone now.

«And why should they not be able to freely air their grievances as any other resident who rights arguably are being infringed upon?»

What grievances do homosexuals still have which others don't?

Homosexuals can already marry each other, even tonight! Nothing stops them except perhaps this perverse desire to receive a piece-of-paper from the government which nobody should be receiving anyway. Government should not define our personal relationships, in fact it should not even know about them.

I have many grievances about Australian laws too, I too am in a minority in several other areas of life, probably in even smaller minorities than homosexuals, bi-sexuals, transgenders, etc. Nothing stops me from freely airing my grievances, but nothing stops them from keeping their oppressive laws either. Do you really think that politicians ever listen?

By asking government for this piece-of-paper you actually strengthen their control. Why fight separately about this or that specific problem when we can fight together for the total abolition of state control over our lives?

«would you like to rephrase?»

Being seduced and having our mind polluted by our body's sexual tendencies (whatever sexual-object(s) they happen to be directed at, it makes no difference) is a weakness of character. 99.9999% of us are imperfectly afflicted by this seduction to one degree or another. This is OK, we are not angels, we should not be demonised over it but we should not be proud of it either.

«Sexuality is a tonic, a healer, a rejuvenator.»

This is an illusion: what actually happens is that sexuality already troubles one's mind, then during or immediately following the physical sexual act, the mind is temporarily vacated of desire and this is felt as a healing relief. Just imagine how rejuvenated you could constantly be if the desire was absent from your mind to begin with!

«Why not?»

The more you fuss about sex, the stronger it will persist in your mind and torment it.

Yuyutsu, Saturday, 20 August 2016 8:16:27 PM

Yuyutsu writes: "I noticed that you cited my name as if I claimed that Phanto is deliberately lying."

Pogi replies: I realise a cursory reading of my own paragraph in isolation might determine as you suggest.

Phanto wrote: "They are simply words. Everyone who reads them would look for some evidence to back up this assertion and if they did not find any then they would simply move on."

Pogi replied: You are not only wrong, you are deliberately lying, as the presence of AJP, DreamOn, Loudmouth, Toni Lavis, Robert, Yuyutsu, Banjo Paterson, Daffy Duck etc, attest.

Pogi replies: However, when read in conjunction with Phanto's post the intention in my own post is made clear. [a] Let us look at, "Everyone who reads them would look for some evidence to back up this assertion....." The assertion that "everyone" would would look for evidence is clearly directly contradicted by many posts in this topic, especially as Phanto has declared that he is too intelectually indigent to provide evidence or his posts bear the imprimatur of eternal and inviolable truth simply because he claims so. In my estimation both conditions apply. My judgement of him is that he knows his assertion is false, hence he is lying.

[b] Then let us look at the second part of his assertion, "....and if they did not find any then they would simply move on." Here Phanto has made another assertion that he knows full well is untrue. "Everyone" is understood to apply here as it does in [a]. None of those listed above have declared they are not interested in continuing to contribute and have not necessarily moved on. Most of them are maintaining a vigorous and vociferous presence. He even replies to them! Again, in my estimation, Phanto is undeserving of leniency or being allowed literary licence.

I can find no good reason to interpret what I wrote as suggesting you shared any of my thoughts or intentions. Nevertheless I will remain vigilant so that I will continue to be innocent of disturbing your equanimity.

phanto? Are you still there? It… it’s just that I’m feeling a bit insecure about my beliefs at the moment and need to debate someone so that I can reassure myself of them. Please. It’s really bad this time. I keep trying to remind myself that if I really were feeling insecure about my beliefs then I wouldn’t feel the need to say so, but it’s not working.